Scored before it runs
Every task is scored for what it could break.
Send the incident notice to everyone on the outage list.
- write
google.gmail · send_message
487 recipients
The problem with treating every action the same
A flat approval flow can't tell the difference between an agent drafting a reply and an agent wiring money or dropping a database. So teams pick one extreme: review everything and grind to a halt, or review nothing and pray. The signal that should drive the decision, how irreversible and far-reaching the action is, never gets measured, so it never gets used.
How risk assessment works
Blast-radius scoring
Each task is scored on reversibility, scope, and sensitivity of the tools it requests, surfaced as a low / medium / high pill on the approval.
Risk-based gating
Set thresholds: auto-approve low risk, require a human above a line, hard-block the truly dangerous.
Context-aware
The same tool scores differently by scope: github · list_issues on one repo is not github · create_issue across the org.
Tuned to your tolerance
Adjust where the lines sit per team or environment, so staging moves fast and production stays careful.
Human attention lands on the few tasks that could actually hurt.
It’s one of the power-ups you get from approving the task instead of the tools.
Risk assessment
Every request is scored for risk before execution. Clawvisor flags anomalous parameters, unusual access patterns, scope creep, and prompt-injection attempts hiding in tool arguments.
Let your agents act. Safely.
Connect your accounts and put a gatekeeper in front of your agents in minutes. Free to start, no credit card.